The Most Desired Future Nikon Lenses

One topic that many of us Nikon shooters often discuss between each other in local groups, online forums and various photography clubs, is lenses that we wish Nikon had. Sometimes a desired lens comes from our experience from using a lens from another brand, sometimes it is something that does not exist, but we wish existed to make our photography easier, more fun, etc. While Nikon has been doing a great job filling in the holes during the last several years, there are still plenty of lenses that Nikon should update or have in its arsenal. In this article, I will go over the most desired future Nikon lenses, the ones that have not been released yet, but I really wish to see come to life soon. I guess you can also call the below a “wishlist” of unannounced Nikon lenses.

1) DX / APS-C Lenses

I will first start out with DX / APS-C lenses. I am not sure if Nikon is planning to keep its DX line in the future or not, since it has clearly failed to make a solid line-up of attractive DX lenses and has instead chosen to concentrate on bigger and heavier FX glass. If we look at what Fuji has done with its X-series lenses, it is clear that Nikon has been missing a lot of opportunities to make DX an attractive platform, especially for those who do not want to move up to FX in the future. Because of this, I have been rather pessimistic about Nikon’s DX future. Still, Nikon continues to release and sell DX cameras and there are still far more people buying DX than FX today. So if Nikon wants to keep its DX line alive and keep its DX shooters from switching to mirrorless, it should work on releasing more attractive glass that is designed specifically for the smaller sensor.

It is a known fact that the current DX lens lineup is weak. Aside from a couple of solid zoom choices like the Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E DX VR and a few outdated primes, there is really nothing else to be proud of. The 17-55mm f/2.8G was excellent back in its days, but it desperately needs an update. Without a doubt, DX users need more great primes and better zooms!

Ultra-Wide Angle DX Primes: Aside from the Fisheye 10.5mm f/2.8G, Nikon has no ultra-wide angle lenses for DX shooters. Why not release something like 10mm f/2.8 DX, 12mm f/2.8 DX and 14mm f/2.8 DX? Make them cheap, make them good optically and people will buy them. Since it does not look like Nikon is going to add in-body image stabilization to its DX cameras, VR would be a bonus.

Nikon 23mm f/1.4E DX VR: A small, pro-grade 23mm f/1.4 DX lens would be great. 35mm is a focal length of choice for many photographers, so this lens would fit the bill perfectly, especially if its made to be small and reasonably light. Fuji has made an excellent 23mm f/1.4 lens, so hopefully Nikon can design something similar.

Nikon 23mm f/2E DX VR: A budget-friendly version of the above lens. A 23mm f/2.8 pancake would be sweet as well.

Nikon 35mm f/1.4E DX VR: We already have a budget-friendly 35mm f/1.8G DX, so why not make a pro-grade version of it specifically designed for DX?

Nikon 50mm f/1.4E DX VR: Whether it is a 50mm f/1.4 DX or a 56mm f/1.4 DX does not matter, as long as it is light and has great bokeh for portraits. If Nikon can make an f/1.2 lens like Fuji has done with its 56mm f/1.2, it would be even better, but it will probably be too expensive. A budget-friendly f/1.8E version would be a good idea as well.

Super Telephoto DX Primes: The Nikon D500 is a very popular camera, so why not make super telephoto lenses specifically for those who want to shoot wildlife with DX and want to stay light? I would love to see 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4 and 500mm f/4 DX primes that are inexpensive. Imagine a D500 + 500mm f/4 VR DX kit that gives a 750mm equivalent field of view. Slap on a 1.4x TC and you have an ultimate super telephoto setup.

The DX Trinity: Ultimately, it would be great if Nikon could develop equivalents of Nikon 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses for the DX sensor. So a new “DX Trinity” with a Nikon 10-16mm f/2.8E DX VR, 16-50mm f/2.8E DX VR and 50-150mm f/2.8E VR DX would be ideal. These obviously won’t be cheap lenses to make, but Nikon should not price them higher than $900-$1,200.

If Nikon ever decides to go mirrorless, it might start off by making cameras with APS-C sensors first, like Canon has done with its EOS M line. And if that’s the case, then I really hope the company will start with a solid line-up of prime and zoom lenses optimized specifically for APS-C sensors.

2) FX Lenses

Nikon has a number of FX lenses that need to be updated as soon as possible. There are also many lenses that would be nice to add – from wide angle lenses, to super telephoto.

Nikon 14mm f/2.8E: Time to update the classic. It should be small like its predecessor, relatively lightweight and very sharp on high-resolution cameras. Slap on Nano Crystal Coat, fluorine coating and a weather-resistant design and it will be a very attractive lens for many.

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8E VR: The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR and 70-200mm f/2.8E VR are already out, so it is time to update the classic with an electronic diaphragm and all the latest coating technologies.

Nikon 16-35mm f/2.8E VR: This can be either a 16-35mm or a 17-35mm lens for pros that need the quality and durability of a pro-grade lens. It will be heavy and it will be superb optically. Nano coated glass, fluorine coating, aspherical elements, rear focus with a protective rear element that is easy to clean. Unlike the 14-24mm, it should be able to take filters. Landscape photographers will drool over this lens.

Nikon 24mm f/2.8 PC-E: Yes, the new 19mm f/4E PC is excellent, but the old 24mm f/3.5 desperately needs an update. It is too soft on modern high-resolution cameras and Nikon needs to design it the same way as the 19mm f/4E PC, so that it has the same rotating capabilities.

Nikon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake: Canon has had its 40mm pancake for a while now, so why not make a cheap equivalent?

Nikon 50mm f/1.4E VR: The current 50mm f/1.4G is too weak optically, especially on the modern high resolution cameras. It is time for Nikon to bring 50mm back to life, with a pro-grade 50mm f/1.4 lens that performs well wide open. Yes, it will be heavy, sharp and expensive, and its bokeh will be beautiful. Add VR to it and it will hit the spot.

Nikon 24-70mm f/4E VR: Canon has had its EF 24-70mm f/4L IS model for a while and it is time for Nikon to respond. We need a cheaper version of the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, which will have excellent sharpness wide open, with the latest generation VR on top. Or perhaps Nikon can find a way to make the 24-120mm f/4 sharper, especially towards the telephoto range. If we have to lose some focal length, so be it. How about a Nikon 20-100mm f/4E VR instead? That would be my ultimate landscape lens.

Nikon 85mm f/1.4E VR: The classic 85mm f/1.4G is excellent, but Nikon can do better. Add VR and all the latest coating technologies and make the new one optically superior, so that it can be sharp wide open on high-resolution sensors.

Nikon 135mm f/1.8E VR: The new Nikon 105mm f/1.4E is absolutely insane. Why not update the classic 135mm f/2D with an f/1.8 version so that it can compete with the new Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art?

Nikon 200mm f/2E FL VR: Nikon has not updated its bokeh king, the 200mm f/2 for a long time now. It is time to push an update with fluorite glass, latest-generation VR and new coatings.

Nikon 200mm f/2.8E VR: Speaking of the 200mm f/2E, why not make a smaller f/2.8 version that does not cost an arm and a leg? It would be twice lighter and insanely sharp, reasonably priced.

Nikon 200mm f/4E VR Macro: This would be a macro lens that is insanely sharp, with VR for those of us that like to get close without having to physically get close.

Nikon 200-400mm f/4E FL VR + 1.4x TC: Time to update the 200-400mm and make it lighter, so that it looks as good as all the new FL versions. To compete with Canon’s 200-400mm, it would be a good idea to include a built-in teleconverter that is optimized for the lens.

Nikon 400mm f/5.6E PF VR: Now that the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF VR is out, why not make a 400mm PF version? If it is going to be close to the 300mm f/4E PF’s size, it will be an amazing lens for birding, especially once a 1.4x TC is attached! Hopefully Nikon does not price it above $2,000.

What lenses do you wish Nikon made or updated in the next few years? What is your most desired lens from the above? Please let me know in the comments section below!

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to our email newsletter to receive biweekly emails notifying you of the latest articles posted on the website. Email Address First Name

By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as detailed in the Privacy Policy.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is the author and founder of Photography Life, based out of Denver, Colorado. He is recognized as one of the leading educators in the photography industry, conducting workshops, producing educational videos and frequently writing content for Photography Life. You can follow him on Instagram, 500px and Facebook. Read more about Nasim here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

for me the most import update Nikon can do is an optical improvement of the 16-35mm/4.

I need three copies to get one which is working ok’ish on my D750 (corner sharpness), but if i use it on the D810 i think it is really bad. I will never go to the 2.8’s from Nikon or Tamron, because of the weight and the big filters. Canon has already shown that it is possible to make an outstanding f4 UWA ;-)

For a new developed lens the number one on my personal wishlist would be a 24-70/4 with an excellent optical performance.

Klaus, I have had better luck with the 16-35mm f/4G VR, but I agree – lens variation on those is a problem and the lens is not particularly good on the latest high resolution cameras from Nikon. If Nikon does it right, the 16-35mm f/2.8E VR could be a winner though, although its cost is probably going to be pretty high.

I’d personally prefer a 24-70mm f/4E VR that autofocuses as fast as the 200mm f/2, while still weighing below 750g. I’m willing to pay USD3000 for it, since such a lens will pretty much obviate the need for me to get the 70-200m f/4.

I agree. Nikon 16-35/4N VR need to be upgraded, ’cause Canon already upgrade their 17-40/4L to the 16-35/4L IS, and it’s a very good lens that beat the Nikon in almost every aspect (sharpness, distortion, sunstar…). Beside, the 17-35/2.8 is very old now, Nikon need a new 16-35/2.8N (VR) to compete with those newly-released lenses: Canon 16-35/2.8L mkIII, Sony 16-35/2.8 GM, Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC.

Being a hiker, 35mm 1.8G, in my opinion, is too large and heavy, compared to older f/2 version. I agree that it is a mere 100 grams heavier and the dimension difference is under two centimeters, it does make a difference at the end of a mountain hike. That 100 grams difference, for me, means a different choice for second telephoto lens I can carry along. Low weight and small size, are important to me.

I also strongly wish for a 400mm fixed focal lenght for nikon with superb IQ wide open. My start into wildlife/bird was the old Sigma 400mm F/5,6 APO Macro which had “best” IQ at f/8 on my D7100. Since a love to carry my lens/cam combo a whole day long over my shoulder fighting through the bush a was forced to switch to my beloved 300mm “D” f/4. More reach at similar weight and IQ could be done with a 400mm FL f/4. Nikon, Tamron, Sigma – are you listening???

Hi Nasim, I own the 16-35f4 and 70-200f4, as well as the 35f1,8, the 85f1,8 and the 300f4E. The three primes are fine and I am not intending to replace them for a while. The 70-200f4 is also quite good, provided that you avoid f4 at 200mm. Not good Under low light conditions but the f2,8 is too heavy and expensive for my budget. I love the 16-35 range and use it a lot. But corners are really soft. I am desperately waiting for a better 16-35, could be f2,8 or f4 it does not really matter for me but VR is important because I never use tripods. You can notice that I don’t use any standard zoom. this is simply because none of them are tempting to me: 24-120 is too soft in the tele range, 24-70f2,8 is too heavy and bulky. I would be interested in a sharp and light standard zoom, whatever the range and aperture : could be 24-70, 24-105, or even 35-105…

Thierry, that’s a good selection of glass you have there. I agree, the 16-35mm should be updated with a sharper optical design in the corners, especially on high-resolution cameras. And we desperately need a 24-70mm f/4E VR – that would be a sweet lens to have! Maybe Nikon can release an updated version of the 24-120mm f/4 in a smaller zoom package that has better overall sharpness across the range. My wish though would be for something like 20-100mm f/4E VR. That would be an ultimate landscape lens!

Nasim, I don’t beleve that a 20-100f4 can be a lightweight option. A 20-50 could be easier to design and a lightweight package. This would be very tempting for me: it could replace both the 16-35 and the 24-70.

For me the biggest problem in the Nikkor lens line is the miss of very small and lightweight DX lenses. If you want to go lightweight nowadays DX is the way to go in my opinion. The latest DX sensors are so good there is hardly a need for FX. The extra reach and extra DOF are often advantages. For travel something like a D5600 + 1 kitlens and one or two lightweight pancake primes would be awesome. I am afraid Nikon realizes that DX is so good nowadays that many people don’t need FX anymore except for their lenses…

Cees, and that’s the problem with Nikon – it does not want to release any good DX glass, only adding more and more FX glass. If Nikon wants to stay competitive with mirrorless, it should release more appealing DX lenses that are specifically designed for the latest generation high-resolution Nikon DX cameras.

I think that Nikon has left it up to other manufacturers to make crop sensor lenses and that is fine with me. As long as there is still support for them I see no reason why not to pick up a Sigma or Tamron or Samyang. Everyone is stepping up their game and for a lower price. My trinity is a tokina 11-16 f2.8, a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and a Sigma 50-150 APO f2.8 (no longer made sadly). In terms of primes we are spoilt for choice by third party as well. What I would like to see is improved AF motors on third party lenses to match Nikon’s and light primes like Tamron and Fuji are doing.

Konstantin, while I agree that third party options are great to have, I would love Nikon to start making better quality DX lenses specifically made for DX cameras. It is sad to see their lack of attention on DX, they are literally killing it. If Nikon does not move faster towards more appealing DX, everyone will switch to lighter and more versatile mirrorless APS-C systems. Many already have – take a look at how many Nikon shooters have sold their gear to fully move to Fuji X system. I know quite a few photographers who have done that…

I agree Nasim. Nikon is loosing the aps-c market but I think body more than lenses are to blame. Mirrorless is here to stay and this is were light primes will come in handy. Nikon should move fast as even Canon are ahead of them in that department. Maybe they are waiting to release a mirrorless lineup to release more lenses. I am waiting to see but the DL cancellation did not promise much.

Nassim, Great article. I agree with your proposed DX trinity. As an “enthusiast” (aka enthusiastic amateur), I have no interest in moving to a heavier FX system. So I make due with my 420gm D5500 with my trinity of the Nikon 12-24, Sigma 17-50 and Nikon 50-200 dx vr2, supplemented by the 35mm f1.8 dx g and the 85 f1.8 g. Its disappointing that Nikon’s recently announced 10-20 mm uwa is so slow. I’ll continue hoping for Nikon to see the dx “light” but in the meantime will keep an eye on the rapid innovations in the mirror-less end of the market. Having said that, lenses for mirrorless bodies are not exactly budget friendly for non-pros.

These lists (DX and FX) are long, ambitious and if you were Nikon, completely foolish, in their entirety. With the current state of Nikons business, it is obvious that they are going through a transition and need to be extremely selective and successful in what they launch at this point. The last rounds of lenses, were both curious and yawn worthy.

This list has multiple lenses that fit the same “general” gap in their game. Nikon doesn’t need to bring out volume, but need to bring out a few game changers. They need to focus on two categories from a lens standpoint. We won’t even get into bodies.

DX has been somewhat ignored. I agree. An upgrade to the 17-55 would be welcomed. It’s the most versatile focal length. But what has really changed since this lens was launched? FL coating and faster AF. A slight upgrade to this lens should come first. It better be built in Japan though as pros know quality and it better have better build quality than the 105 that was released this past year with its pseudo SWM. Nikon should be embarrassed with the overall build quality of that lens for the price. And side note: The 105 2.0 DC still blows it away for half the price.

I always cringe when I hear people asking for an ultra-wife lens for DX mount. You own a crop sensor camera, and the laws of optics have already determined your outcome. I guess launching a 10mm or quality 12-24 might be worth it. But it better not cost a fortune, as most people that get into landscape (which is the target category for these ultra-wide lenses) go FF eventually and aren’t looking to sink a bank into DX glass.

F4 with VR on a lot of the lenses you chose are a good idea with the advancements in ISO performance. They could keep the cost and weight/size down on these lenses. Again, they need to be extremely selective in the focal lengths they choose.

Personally, I’m not as enameled by Nikons recent lens launches and think a lot of the upgrades on their portrait lenses are going in the wrong direction. They are trading optical quality for speed (focus) and that’s kind of counter intuitive in many ways. It’s also why companies like Zeiss eat their lunch in image quality and contrast. Give me a MF Zeiss lens all day for portrait.

My dream lens from Nikon: A sharp, contrasts 58mm to upgrade that $1,600 turd they launched a few years back. That should be a legendary lens (NOCT anyone), but failed on so many levels. It’s Nikons 100 year anniversary. Instead of painting your lenses grey, give me a bad-ass version of this lens and put a nice metal badge on it.

300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4 and 500mm f/4 DX primes: any reason to believe their front-lens diameter would be any smaller than that of their FX brethren? It is my understanding that front lens diameters larger than 100mm are mostly the reason why super-teles are so expensive.

Nikon didn’t come out with all those desirable DX primes when DX was the only game in town and I very much doubt they will do so now that DX DSLR definitely has no future. Despite the D500 (I own two but have no DX lenses anymore to go along with them, they are exclusively used to “extend the reach of my teles”). My wife’s camera system is build around the D500/16-80 and my old Tokina 11-16/2.8 is covering her ultra-wide angle needs quite well (if I would buy new now, I’d take the 11-20/2.8).

Designs of DX ultra-wides and wide-angle need to accommodate the FX flange-to-sensor distance which poses quite a few problems that are somewhat lessened if that dimension could be shrunk for a mirrorless camera.

16-35/2.8E VR – definitely a lens missing in Nikon’s current FX lens line-up. An updated 16-35/4E VR would be equally welcome and the one I personally would choose over the f/2.8 version. Wouldn’t mind if Nikon could extend the range of the f/4 zoom to 15mm or even 14mm (if possible while maintaining the ability to mount filters on the front). Rather than a 14-24/2.8E VR, I’d like to see Nikon competing with Sigma and Sony with a 12-24/4 or take on Canon with its 11-24/4, preferably adding VR into the mix as well.

24-70/4E VR most certainly missing in the Nikon line-up. I just gave up on non-f/2.8 Nikon mid-range zooms (and third party offerings as well) and filled the gap between the 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 with a Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens.

Never understood why Nikon didn’t offer an AF (and later, AF-S) version of the 400/5.6 – so a 400/5.6E PF VR is definitely gets my vote. As does a 500/5.6E PF VR. Wonder if either could be made to be no longer than a 70-200/2.8? And certainly no heavier.

An equivalent of the 24 f/1.4 : a 16mm f/1.4E DX, pro-grade lens with water sealing. There is a lack of fast UWA for DX lovers. And of course, a 16-50 (or 55) f/2.8E VR, pro-grade lens too, and an UWA like the 11-20 f/2.8 Tokina, but with Nikon’s quality (AF, less flare, better construction, water sealing, etc.).

For portraits, we already have the amazing 58mm 1.4G, which is pretty good for its bokeh, so I don’t think we need more lens. For an equivalent of a 35 1.4 (on FX), we have the 24mm f/1.4G (heavy but good enough).

I’d jump at a new 24-120mm f/4e with a higher overall performance, top of the range coatings etc. I always found the 24-70 range just too short and preferred the extra 50mm at the tele end. I would also enjoy a new 16-35mm f/4e with better edge sharpness.

Interesting list, it mirrors for a big part the one I made some time ago, but there are differences I think they are worth of discussion:

DX lenses: -Is there truly a desperate need for pro-level glass? I would believe that this part of the market is better served by FX, so I’m not so sure that the proposed f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms should be a priority. I would think that the priority should be on competent but small glass, like those f/2.8-f/1.8 primes you mentioned (plus a 58mm f/1.8) and wide and tele brothers for the 16-80mm f/2.8-4. If they can make them short (no need for constant lenght) and optically very good, I would think that something like a 10-20mm and 50-14mm f/2.8-4 would help a lot to make DX fill the role that FX can’t (that of competent, small and light gear).

-As mentioned in other comment, I’m under the impression that supertele lenses are dominated in diameter by their physical aperture (and quick calculations on real lenses seems to support that), so I would believe that there is no gain on DX-only lenses in this range.

FX lenses: -I have no idea where is the replacement more needed, but perhaps a 16-35mm f/4 VRII should be priority over a f/2.8 version? Especially if they also update the 14-24mm f/2.8?

-I would say that they need to uptake the complete PC-E line, not just the 24mm (thought that one may be the more critical to update first).

-I would add a 105mm f/1.8 to that 180mm f/2.8 VR to complete the lighter/cheaper telephoto lineup (yeah, 180mm, not 200mm, just for the sake of old times).

-Would be better a 500mm f/5.6 PF? 400mm f/5.6 is basically the current 300mm PF with a TC, so I would think that 500mm would not only diversify more the lineup, but also offer a truly supertele in a compact package (something that doesn’t exist right now).

3: CX leases. For family/travel snapshots CX is good size, small enough that you could have just a trip, not photo trip with it on your belt. It doesn’t eat space and weight from family’s baggage.

• 13mm f/1.2 lens (35mm FOV). Fast primes, good AF-C and durability – advantages of Nikon 1 over fixed-zoom cameras with 1″ sensor. I’m using it mostly with 32mm f/1.2 and 18.5mm f/1.8, and I wish there was something wider. 10mm f/2.8 is way too slow.

• 30-110mm f/2.0 VR. That would make Nikon 1 usable for action shooting not only in bright light. And this lens could be made much smaller, lighter and faster focusing than Sigma f/1.8 and Olympus f/2.0 zooms. Current 1 NIKKOR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 VR is good, but usable in bright light only for anything moving.

• 110-330mm f/2.8 VR or 100-400mm f/2.4-3.2 VR. A bit too long for me personally, but bird photographers who like current 1 NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR and even COOLPIX P900 would love this lens. Then we’ll need a V5 with modern sensor, but that is a different story.

Wish lists! I wasn’t expecting such a long list of FX wants, but sure, any of them would be nice. I, along with lots of other folks apparently, think the DX area is where Nikon’s missing out. I’d like to think there’s a good reason for that, but man Nikon’s management doesn’t give me much expectation other than some archaic notion of protecting FX.

However I think long DX-only primes are not worth the hassle. There aren’t many to compare directly but look at the Olympus 300 f/4 (1.5 kg, 9″ long, 77 mm) versus the Nikon 300 f/4 pair (0.8 kg, 6″ long, 77 mm or 1.4 kg, 9″ long, 77 mm). There’s no advantage from 1/4 size sensor in lens size. Yes yes, on the tiny sensor it’s equivalent FoV to 600 mm, but that’s not germane to what we’re saying here. If you want a DX 300 f/4, what size/weight/COST advantage do you suppose it’ll have?

Hi Nasim, Great article, as usual. As a dedicated DX shooter (D500, my last DSLR) your DX suggestions really are a “dream” and I would definitely purchase your suggested DX trinity and likely a long telephoto. Sigma and Tamron are filling in some of the blanks and I especially like the Sigma Art series. The Sigma 18-35 is especially noteworthy. I haven’t tried the Sigma 50-100 because the range isn’t perfect and it lacks image stabilization. It would be great if Nikon stepped up and filled in the blanks. You also mentioned the Nikon 16-80 as a bright spot and I couldn’t agree more. I am amazed at some of the bad reviews. This lens is very sharp and focuses fairly fast on a D500. I decided to try it on some professional shoots after some practice, and now use it routinely. It has replaced the 24-70 2.8 which is a big surprise. After years of considering selling it for its less then ideal 24mm length on the wide end I finally sold it. Sounds like blasphemy that a plasticky “consumer” lens would replace an FX trinity lens, but it’s simply better.

ScepticalUno Totally agree. Did the same. Wondering (hoping) the rumored FF 70-300 will be an asset for my wonderful D500. The DX version, while quick and sharp, didn’t impress due to lack of quality. Wouldn’t a DX 100-400 be sweet! Your thoughts?

I actually have the 80-400 and I like it, but it is very expensive and has a fairly light build (I actually don’t mind that). It also has some limitations in terms of sharpness on the long end and poor support for TC’s. I would love to have another, better choice in Nikon without having to go to a 3rd party. This is more of a complaint about Nikon in general, but I hope they get their act together in terms of DX lens choices and mirror-less. Right now I use two systems and would just as soon use one and I would prefer it be mirror-less. I passed on Fuji for many valid reasons several years ago, but now their system is more complete and capable. I will not need to change for sometime, but I would like a mirror-less alternative to the D500. It is my hope that Nikon eventually builds that camera and the necessary lenses for it. If they don’t and Fuji has a decent alternative when the D500’s wear out, I will switch. They need to get with it!

Thanks for your reply. I have the Fuji X-T2 with the 35f2 and the awesome 16-55. I hardly use the D500 anymore although it’s a fantastic camera. I’m adding the 50-140 soon (the 100-400 is pretty heavy). If Nikon produces that 70-300 or something better I’ll use the D500 for the few times I need the longer reach.

Hi Sean, I actually wasn’t aware of the Sigma 100-400. Thanks for the tip. I just looked it up and was surprised to learn that it had a push/pull zoom! Not sure I’d go back to the push pull days. Other than Tokina, I’ve never owned a third-party lens although I know they’re vastly improved.

Hi Sean, I am not interested at all after seeing one. The picture quality is excellent, but the main reason I would want the lens is for wildlife and the AF is slow even on a D500. BTW – I am generally a pretty big Sigma fan and have 3 Sigma lenses I really like. I use two of them routinely on professional shoots.

Hi Steve, The XT-2 is getting closer to what I need. My issue (and the reason that I use DSLR’s) is that I need the best possible AF tracking. Much of what I shoot is dogs in action. The better a camera tracks, the more in focus shots I get. Both the D500 and the OMD-EM1 MkII get the job done (the Nikon is still better, but just barely). So, I am hoping for a sports oriented mirror-less camera with an DX sensor. Someday we will have that from Fuji, Nikon, Canon etc. but not yet. When that happens, I won’t have to maintain two systems.

My go to favorite lens for almost everything I do is the AF-S 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 G ED . I’d give my eye teeth to have that lens in pro glass. The lens as it is now is a winner, but with room for improvement. I can only imagine a pro version of it. To me it is more versatile than almost any other lens. Nikon, I hope you are reading these posts.

An update to the 24-120mm F4 would be welcome. Maybe 35-120mm with an update to the 16-35mm F4 as well. As I get older I am looking for those lighter lenses to carry around. The 300mm f4E PF ED being an example of this.

I would up-vote for more long reach PF lenses. PF 400 f/4 or f/5.6; PF 500 f/5.6. The weights on those should be quite reasonable. How about a PF 70-200 f/2.8, or even a PF 70-300 or 100-300 f/2.8? Would those weigh less than current such lenses? I was surprised that the 200-500 was not a PF lens, as using PF would have made it a lot lighter, and therefore more attractive (especially when compared to the 150-600 lenses out there). My 2 cents.

Budget is nice; but as I get older weight becomes more of a consideration then it use to be. I think the 200-500 is around 80 ozs. A PF version would weigh (as a guess) approx. 60 ozs, perhaps even less, which is about what the Nikon 80-400 weighs, and would be less than the Tamron 150-600 G2. I would be willing to give up the reach for the lower weight and higher cost. Again, only my 2 cents worth.

I believe Canon have a zoom Fresnel, but it’s supposed to be dodgy. My experience with the 300mm pf is to get the best out of it (contrast wise) you shouldn’t add a filter, so I expect a zoom pf would be difficult.

To help out Nikon, let’s agree the 500/5.6 pf is most required. Or 450mm/4.5pf…

While most of the lenses you listed might be nice, I doubt they are really needed. For example, the 85/1.4G is fairly new, a fantastic lens, and really doesn’t need VR. I shoot with it on the D810 and it performs very well. Same comment with the 14-24, doesn’t need VR. It’s a good thing you aren’t the president of Nikon because, if you were, they would go broke!

When I was shooting film Nikons I used a 35mm f/2 lens on one camera body (Nikon FM) and it served me quite well for light and fast. Why can’t we have an equivalent in DX?I would absolutely love a compact 23mm DX lens for my D3200. I carry my “big” D300s and battery grip for serious photography but have fallen in love with the excellent results from my diminutive D3200 and kit lens. I have the 35mm DX lens but the equivalent focal length of around 52mm is too long for casual shooting in close places. C’mon Nikon – give us a choice here!

Nikon has a plan, and it involves FF. They’ve been quite happy for people to pickup a Fuji or Sony or Olympus, and I just don’t see that stopping. They can mark up the prices of FF cameras and lenses, so they remain profitable while selling less cameras. It should be embarrassing that Fuji, in only a few years, have created a full set of primes below 90mm, the two zooms, 16-55 and 50-140, and had so much time on it’s hands it then replicated existed lens lengths to make them waterproof and lighter, albeit slightly slower. They should copy Fuji for a change, instead of canon. If they had some decent primes and zooms for dx, I’d use my D7200 more. As it is, I only use that for 300mm or longer. Shame really, as I’d have quite happily bought Nikon lenses and stayed with Nikon if they could create a decent set of dx primes, that were affordable. The only Nikon lenses I’m interested in now would be the long lenses, I’d love a 400mm f5.6 like the canon.

A 135mm f/1.8, VR is not necessary at all. VR will simply increase weight and price. But this 135mm should be sharper and with more character than 135 Sigma Art. And price? Comparable to Sigma Art otherwise no competition because people will take Sigma that is a perfect and outstanding lens. This is simply a dream…

The future seems to be full frame (or even larger) mirrorless. I love my D750 but I would love an affordable FX mirrorless a lot more. If I can keep my considerable collection of F mount lenses I’m most happy.

Counts for me as well. I have a broad range of lenses. But I do not agree with photoshopping is a replacement for having dedicated lenses. I crop only a little bit and only if really necessary. The pro zooms I take for jobs, but if I shoot privately nothing is better than fixed lenses. I very much love the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D, still screw driven (I do not mind) is it light, very easy to handle and its quality is truly outstanding. I take with me a D800E and those three lenses: 20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 180mm f/2.8. As for DX lenses: I have the pro level 12-24mm f/4 which is really good, but not manufactured any more and replaced by the 10-24mm f/2.5-4.5. Nasim has a point: With the D500 Nikon definitely should have a trinity of lenses that are the DX counterpart for the FX 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 and as well for some primes, I’d go: 14mm f/1.8 DX, 35mm f/1.8 DX (existing) and a 120mm f/2.8 DX and a 300mm f/2.8 DX.

The 24-120 is my only zoom lens. I use it for family travel and such, but it is not good enough for much of the work that I do. I also find that using fixed lenses keeps me more engaged as a photographer. That said, I usually bring two or three fixed lenses. Which lenses I bring depends on the occasion but are often 24mm or 35mm and 85mm. If there was the 135mm f/1.8E VR then I would probably add that as a third lens in the 35-85-135 lineup.

One don’t need many lenses, but one needs good lenses. Camera bodies are replaced every few years while good lenses last a long time.

DX: 16 mm F2.8 – DX users have been screaming for this prime (24 mm full frame equivalent) for years and Nikon being the dumb company it is, pretends not to hear. They are too concerned that their FX line will suffer. Dumb, really.

Somewhere inbetween beginner and enthousiast, i think i am where many dslr-buyers are. I will never move to fx since that’s more than i need and just giving more weight, space and costs.

My wishlist is not that long since imho the newest dx kit lenses (i have af-p 18-55 and 55-200 II) are really good. My biggest wish would be a fixed 12 to 16 dx wide angle; 1.8 or 2.8 would be nice but could even live with f4 to keep weight low. Since i dont see it coming i might have to try that announced 10-20 though. And a 20 to 24 small lens / pancake please. Love my 35 1.8 but find it a bit too long in many cases.

Personally I want the following 2 lenses for my D750: (i) 20-100mm f/4: it has to be better than the Sigma Art 24-105, weighs about 700-800gr and costs about $1000. This would be a perfect walk-around lens. (ii) 200-400mm f/4: must be better than the current model, especially at the tele end, weighs about 1kg and priced about $1500. I’m not sure if Nikon can do this though.

Honestly I’m not waiting for any Nikkor wish-lens . I’m looking for a mirrorless APS-C-System like Fuji , Sony or even Canon. For Nikon it sometimes takes time. Think of the wonderful AIS 80-200/ f4, built 17 years. The AF 70-210/f4 was only built 2 years and then it took 24 years until the AF-S 70-200/f4 VR.

As a DX shooter I would give my vote for the 16mm f/2.8. That is the only lens from your DX list that I would really buy, if it wasn’t too expensive. Nikon will never release it so I don’t have to worry about that too much :-)

Clearly Nikon is holding back on the real anniversary products, which will be a 300/2.8FL and/or 200/2FL. Taking 500g of those lenses’ weights with the fluorite elements, and updating the 8-year old VR systems, must be on the cards. Superb, if you’ve got $6,000+ spare.

At the other end of the range, I would like to see a revival of the ancient FX 28-105/3.5-4.5 macro, which in my book was never really matched by the new 24-85s, probably because stretching a zoom at the wide end to 24mm adds many IQ problems. Adding AFS and VR and keeping the price reasonable (<$400) would be good.

1. You forgot to mention AF speed! The 105mm f/1.4E apparently autofocuses very fast, but the other primes in the 24-85mm range do not (particularly the 50mm f/1.4, which is a great pity considering its very useful focal length).

AF speed is one reason photographers sometime prefer the 24-70mm f/2.8 over these primes. In fact, I’d argue that AF speed is the main benefit of using dSLRs over mirrorless at this point in time (though the Sony A9 seems to have narrowed this difference considerably), and if Nikon does not continuously improve the AF speed of its lenses, I suspect a lot of its current and prospective dSLRs users will switch to mirrorless.

2. Update the 24-120 f/4 with (a) AF speed equivalent to that of the 200mm f/2, (b) better optics, while (c) keeping the weight below 750g. This is an extremely useful range for FX shooters, so much so that I personally would use this lens ~95% of the time, and I don’t mind paying even USD3000 for it, since it pretty much obviates the need for a 70-200 f/4.

A dedicated portrait DX lens would be nice – 58mm, 60mm or 70mm f/1,8. My tamron 60mm f/2 is great, but 70mm focal lenght on DX is even better. A little and lightweight 16mm, 23mm or 24mm f/2 or 2.4 would be nice, too. And something ultrawide like prime lens 8mm or 9mm f3.5 or 4.0…

I disagree with “Nikon 85mm f/1.4E VR: The classic 85mm f/1.4G is excellent, but Nikon can do better. Add VR and all the latest coating technologies and make the new one optically superior, so that it can be sharp wide open on high-resolution sensors.”

Especially the part which says the current one to be excellent. Sorry, wide open it is a disappointment. I paid for this f/1.4 far too much contrary to the f/1.8 version. It is limited by it’s massive CA wide open. The suggested version would be around 2 k$, they already showed with 105/1.4 to be not too shy when it comes to call for big dosh.

So, this Nikon 85/1.4 E VR would not eat much of the customers already happy and beyond happy with the Sigma Art version.

When Nikon released the 16-80mm f/2.8-4E DX VR I thought it was going to be the start of a new ‘DX enthusiast trinity’. I’m surprised they never released wide and tele lenses to compliment it. Personally, I’d like to see something like this to go with it:

I’m in the market for an ultra wide zoom lens on the D810 and have already guessed that there has to be a new 14-24/f2.8 anytime soon now, considering that the current one was introduced in 2007. From the rumored five new lenses from Nikon this year we are still missing two, right?

However, the one I was looking for has been the 16-35/f4, well until now :-). Is it really not recommended on the D810? It would be my first ultra wide zoom. I was also considering getting two primes instead, the Nikon 20mm f1.8 and the Samyang 14 f2.8. Any opinion on this alternative way?

Irix 15/2.4 (manual), Sigma 14/1.8 or – if you don’t need a speedy f/2.8 or wider open – the Sigma 12-24/4. That one I tried and becasme very tempted to exchange my 14-24/2.8 againstz this 2 extra mm from Sigma. Interested in a 2nd hand 14-24? :)))

What I really want is an UW zoom that takes filters. Neither the Sigma 12-24 you mentioned than the Tamron 15-30 does that. Maybe I’ll have to wait for a 16-35/f4 successor. Does anybody think I would regret getting the 20mm now, when a zoom comes out later that beats it in regard to sharpness?

Tobias, regarding your question: My brother owns the Tamron. Great lens, super sharp, but a giant. My Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8: super sharp, a giant as well and fragile as an egg. You do not want to carry such lenses around too long. Get a 20mm Ai-S oder AFD f/2.8: small, (very) well built and very portable, but not quite as sharp wide open, cheap (compared). You will take it with you many more times than such a zoom. A lens at home is useless.

UWA zoom, no frustration , I regret only the lack of a good prime 16mm 2.8. Zoom transtandard: Is the 16-80 is the ideal lens we were waiting for to replace the 15-55 ? Standard: The price of the 58mm is just crazy. A good 60-70mm 1.8 for portrait, with same quality of the 85 1.8G would be a dream. Tele: My 300PF is just perfect, sometimes too short. Imagine a 400FL/4 or may be also an accessible 500PF/5.6… just cool

Macro, please. I have all the Nikon macro lenses, none of them is anything special by today’s standards. The optics are not better than the old 55mm F/2.8. I have Canon’s MP-E which Nikon can’t touch though a few fringe manufacturers are head-to-head, at the more useful lower magnification end. Nikon’s 105 is easy to beat – buy a Sigma, it’s cheaper. Canon’s 100L macro is easily beatable, too, (I use that regularly) so come on, Nikon. I agree their 200 macro needs VR, and it used to be amazing, now it’s only “OK”. All these would benefit from in-camera stacking, but that’s “only software”. Olympus, Panasonic and others can do it, so come on!!! Nikon have finally nearly caught up with the specialist Macro shooter’s friend – Canon’s Electronic Front Shutter Curtain, (D500, D810) but they make it so clunky to use. Wake up!!.

“The optics are not better than the old 55mm F/2.8.” I’d better qualify that – not >much< better, considering the years! My sharpest lenses are Printing Nikkors – not really camera lenses at all. They only work at 1:1, but are a country mile sharper and better for CA, than the "camera" micro/macro lenses , which are in a bunch some way behind. We need some " / II " versions.

Of the lenses listed, the ones I’m been waiting for and am looking out for are the 14mm f/2.8E, the 135mm f/1.8E VR and the 200mm f/2.8E VR. I’m quite happy with the current 85mm f/1.4G but if they want to upgrade it too then I wouldn’t say no. But the first three are more important.

Nasim, forget about a new 14-24 F/2.8 VR lens, I would gladly shell out $2k if Nikon came out with the Nikon 16-35mm f/2.8E VR lens, The current one stinks to high heaven, but the 14-24 lens doesn’t take filters which is a bit of a deal breaker for me. Don’t get me wrong it’s a fantastic lens, but in all seriousness I don’t know how Nikon can really improve upon the current one. Adding VR to me would make little difference in my opinion, but improving on the 16-35 in terms of optical performance would bring in a lot of buyers.

Dear Michael, I use the older 17-35mm f/2.8 which is still sold by Nikon. I like this lens very much and use it more often than the 14-24mm f/2.8 which is much sharper in the corners. The 17-35mm f/2.8 is about $2k. You may give it a try? Look at the reviews of the B&H website. It is rated high.

Some of this seems a bit pie in the sky with current technology. Surprised nobody has asked for a compact lightweight f2.8 500mm prime for under $2000 !! The consensus does seem to be for a longer brother to the new 300mm pf prime. So maybe 400mm pf f5.6 which would have to be a bit bigger and heavier might be the most realistic bet in the near future or something like a contemporary 400mm prime from Sigma.

The problem is that 400mm f/5.6 is already covered by several other options, including 300PF + TC1.4, 200-500, and 80-400. Maybe if they can price it the same as the 300 it could be ok, but if it’s $2,500+ I think it might be a tough sell.

Great write-up. As a landscape photographer, I use wide-angles more than anything else.

I would like to see a Nikon 11-24 f4 with VR. My other request would be to include a lens hood that clicks in, rather than the terrible loose hood of the current 14-24. Of course giving up 2.8 would be a concern for astro shooters, but you can always carry a dedicate non-VR prime lens for that. VR would be helpful, as handholding a low angle shot at low shutter speeds is sometimes the only way to get the shot. Sony shooters have a huge advantage here with the in body stabilization. To stay relevant, Nikon will have to incorporate this into future bodies. But in the meantime, I rather they spend the additional weight on VR over 2.8.

This would be so well received and a great comeback to the Canon 11-24 f4. Guaranteed to be sold out for months. Every Nikon landscape shooter who could afford it would buy it.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.